1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates in general to gardening tools and, more particularly, to a device for completely removing weeds and their roots from the ground.
2. Summary of the Prior Art
Perhaps the most common tool used for extracting weeds from the ground is the simple garden spade, a long-handled, bladed implement which a gardener typically drives into the ground using his or her foot and then withdraws, with the weed and surrounding soil adhering to the blade. The spade can be a very tedious and time-consuming instrument to use, primarily because it is necessary to scrape off the blade or bang it against the ground after each use so that the spade will be clean and in condition for extracting other weeds.
For this reason, a number of weed extracting tools have been developed which include some type of ejecting device for knocking or releasing weeds and soil out of the tool between uses. Examples of such tools are found in U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,030,770 to Smith, 2,217,109 to Gillmor, 3,123,391 to Novak, and 3,210,112 to Glynn. Also of interest are U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,444,938 to Ballman, 3,534,994 to Sterk, and 4,556,114 to Ryan. The latter patents, however, are directed to soil sampling devices deigned to extract uniformly sized core samples, and are not designed specifically for digging out weeds.
Of the above documents, perhaps the most relevant is U.S. Pat. No. 2,030,770 to Smith. The weed extracting tool disclosed by Smith comprises a cutting head consisting of a pair of opposed, concavo-convex cutting blades and an ejector device mounted for reciprocation between the blades. The ejector device of Smith is biased to a retracted position, so that after the operator exerts a downward force on the device to knock out weeds and soil, the ejector automatically snaps back up to its retracted position. The device of Smith suffers from a number of shortcomings. One problem is that the two-blade cutting head does not allow for optimum digging performance. The two blades have to overcome twice as much friction as a single blade, and in addition, do not penetrate the earth as effectively since the initial penetrating force is not localized in a single area. Also, the cutting head is not useful for extracting weeds having roots or branches which extend beyond the area enclosed between the two blades. In addition, because the blades almost entirely surround the soil plug area, the operator cannot easily look inside the cutting head to see whether all the soil has been removed. Another problem is that, because the ejector is biased to a retracted position, the operator may have to exert a great deal of muscular force in overcoming both the bias of the ejector and the force of the soil clinging to the blades. This is especially troublesome when the soil is damp and tightly compacted.
The weed extracting tool disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,210,112 to Glynn is similar to the tool disclosed by Smith, but comprises a cylindrical cutting head having an inclined open end. The cylindrical cutting head, like the two-blade head of Smith, limits the size of weed and area of soil which can be pulled up. In addition, as in the Smith invention, the ejector device of Glynn is biased to a retracted position and thus may require an undue amount of strength to be activated. Furthermore, the control for the ejector device of Smith is located in the upper portion of the handle, and thus requires that a long rod be extended through the entire length of the handle, from the control at the top to the ejector head at the bottom. This adds unnecessarily to the cost and difficulty of manufacturing the product.
Thus, there exists a long-felt need for a new and improved weed extracting device which overcomes some of the difficulties and shortcomings of the prior art.